Language trees support hybrid model for origin of Indo-European languages

@Moesan

From the Google Bard:

Proto-Indo-European root isro-, sreu means "to flow." It is a verb root, which means that it can be used to form verbs. The root is found in a number of Indo-European languages, including Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Old English.

The meaning of the root is likely related to the idea of something that moves smoothly and continuously. This is reflected in the words that have been formed from the root, which often have meanings related to movement or speed. For example, the Sanskrit word iṣiras, which means "swift," comes from this root.

The root isro-, sreu is also found in a number of compounds, such as the Sanskrit word srotas, which means "river." This word literally means "that which flows," and it is a good example of how the root can be used to form words that have meanings related to movement or speed.

Here is a table of some of the Indo-European words that have been formed from the root isro-, sreu :

Language.......Word....Meaning

Sanskrit........ iṣiras...swift, quick
Greek..............eiro.......to flow
Latin................ire.........to go
Old English...serian....to flow


From the Wikipedia :

Chapter, Names and etymology of the article Danube, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube#Other_names

"The 《Danube》 river was known to the ancient Greeks as the Istros (Ἴστρος)[8] a borrowing from a Daco-Thracian name meaning 'strong, swift', from a root possibly also encountered in the ancient name of the Dniester (Danaster in Latin, Tiras in Greek) and akin to Iranic turos 'swift' and Sanskrit iṣiras (इषिरस्) 'swift', from the PIE *isro-, *sreu 'to flow'.[9]

[9] 《Open access》 Felecan, Oliviu; Felecan, Nicolae (2015). "Straturi etimologice reflectate în hidronimia românească" (PDF). Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics. Universitat de València. 20 (1): 254. doi:10.7203/qfilologia.20.7521 "

From a dilettante layman:

I would also venture to speak of a branch of the 1⁰ wave along the Mediterranean coast, where the names vary around Ézar... and Éser..., and another along the Danube-Rhine where the names vary around Isar..., Iser... . This 2⁰ branch has a subgroup in Germany and the Netherlands, in Issel and IJssel.

Thanks for doc. I read this before too with less details, and I don't doubt in any way of the common origin of almost all the words you cited. But for Czech and other Slavic words (for 'lake' BTW, which is the contrary of a moving water) in jezer- or ezer- proposed another try for etymology, knowing that the Slavic Z matches almost everytime an ancient G.

That said, river names don't change very often and could mark ancient occupations by mankind. The question remains the datation of these namings. We could believe in very ancient settlemets of the namers in Europe and elsewhere because this layer of rivers names is very large. But the apparent unity spite some phonetic evolution and the countries covered evokes me a rather swift and coherent colonisation of Europe and so very possibly IE speakers. But who kows exactly?
 
@Moesan

From the Google Bard:

Proto-Indo-European root isro-, sreu means "to flow." It is a verb root, which means that it can be used to form verbs. The root is found in a number of Indo-European languages, including Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Old English.

The meaning of the root is likely related to the idea of something that moves smoothly and continuously. This is reflected in the words that have been formed from the root, which often have meanings related to movement or speed. For example, the Sanskrit word iṣiras, which means "swift," comes from this root.

The root isro-, sreu is also found in a number of compounds, such as the Sanskrit word srotas, which means "river." This word literally means "that which flows," and it is a good example of how the root can be used to form words that have meanings related to movement or speed.

Here is a table of some of the Indo-European words that have been formed from the root isro-, sreu :

Language.......Word....Meaning

Sanskrit........ iṣiras...swift, quick
Greek..............eiro.......to flow
Latin................ire.........to go
Old English...serian....to flow


From the Wikipedia :

Chapter, Names and etymology of the article Danube, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube#Other_names

"The 《Danube》 river was known to the ancient Greeks as the Istros (Ἴστρος)[8] a borrowing from a Daco-Thracian name meaning 'strong, swift', from a root possibly also encountered in the ancient name of the Dniester (Danaster in Latin, Tiras in Greek) and akin to Iranic turos 'swift' and Sanskrit iṣiras (इषिरस्) 'swift', from the PIE *isro-, *sreu 'to flow'.[9]

[9] 《Open access》 Felecan, Oliviu; Felecan, Nicolae (2015). "Straturi etimologice reflectate în hidronimia românească" (PDF). Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics. Universitat de València. 20 (1): 254. doi:10.7203/qfilologia.20.7521 "

From a dilettante layman:

I would also venture to speak of a branch of the 1⁰ wave along the Mediterranean coast, where the names vary around Ézar... and Éser..., and another along the Danube-Rhine where the names vary around Isar..., Iser... . This 2⁰ branch has a subgroup in Germany and the Netherlands, in Issel and IJssel.

It is from Proto-Indo-European *h₁ésh₂r̥, in Mazandarani language in the north of Iran hezar means "river" and there are some rivers with this name, like Do Hezar River: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Hezar_River and Se Hezar River: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se_Hazar_River
 
Harvard Lab’s really bad four-way mixing model, which used Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers as a source rather than Yamnaya, was their means of "proving" that Anatolia had no PIE heritage.



Even if you use Yamnaya, the model fails for Turkey_BA, because there is no EHG for it to work.
 
Example, you can't make Turkey_BA work with Yamnaya (outgroup from Southern Arc):

Code:
target     left                       weight     se       z
  <chr>      <chr>                       <dbl>  <dbl>   <dbl>
1 Turkey_EBA Turkey_N                  0.425   0.0402 10.6   
2 Turkey_EBA CHG                       0.359   0.0412  8.71  
3 Turkey_EBA PPN                       0.213   0.0355  6.00  
4 Turkey_EBA Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.00332 0.0348  0.0954
> results$popdrop
# A tibble: 15 × 15
   pat      wt   dof   chisq         p f4rank Turkey_N    CHG    PPN Russia_Sa…¹ feasi…² best 
   <chr> <dbl> <dbl>   <dbl>     <dbl>  <dbl>    <dbl>  <dbl>  <dbl>       <dbl> <lgl>   <lgl>
 1 0000      0     6    5.05 5.37e-  1      3    0.425  0.359  0.213     0.00332 TRUE    NA


Bottom line is, Turkey_BA speaks Indo-Anatolian with no Yamnaya/EHG signal.

Time to internalise this, folks, and move on.
 
Example, you can't make Turkey_BA work with Yamnaya (outgroup from Southern Arc):

Code:
target     left                       weight     se       z
  <chr>      <chr>                       <dbl>  <dbl>   <dbl>
1 Turkey_EBA Turkey_N                  0.425   0.0402 10.6   
2 Turkey_EBA CHG                       0.359   0.0412  8.71  
3 Turkey_EBA PPN                       0.213   0.0355  6.00  
4 Turkey_EBA Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.00332 0.0348  0.0954
> results$popdrop
# A tibble: 15 × 15
   pat      wt   dof   chisq         p f4rank Turkey_N    CHG    PPN Russia_Sa…¹ feasi…² best 
   <chr> <dbl> <dbl>   <dbl>     <dbl>  <dbl>    <dbl>  <dbl>  <dbl>       <dbl> <lgl>   <lgl>
 1 0000      0     6    5.05 5.37e-  1      3    0.425  0.359  0.213     0.00332 TRUE    NA


Bottom line is, Turkey_BA speaks Indo-Anatolian with no Yamnaya/EHG signal.

Time to internalise this, folks, and move on.

To be honest i thought it was internalised years ago and now we're talking about the rest of the IE Languages
 
Now, could a reverse Etruscan scenario have happened for this IE Anatolians? If we assume for a moment, yes, then what could have been the factors?
Because otherwise one has to rethink IE stemming from EHG+CHG steppe, and possibly hop onto the CHG IE origin scenario.
 
I have more questons than answers, because the matter of linking languages, archeology and genetic data is a hard one.

I find curious, with all the agglutinative languages we have all around South-Caucasus before modern IE languages (and around metals ages (Sumerian, Elamite, other possibly Dravidian source, Hattian, Urartian, Hurrit) and other ones currently used, and todate all around North or South-Caucasian languages families, a small pop with a completely structurally different language would have developped nefore becoming this huge family we know as the IE's. Had they a so superior level for economy, politics, war skills? Sure we have the Semitic which isn't agglutinative. We may think into the East (E-Iran: E-Caspian) or the West (W-Anatolia)?
Concerning Caucasus close surroundings, we see that even considered IE tongues are become agglutinative in some way (Armenian, Ossetian)! So, an old neolithic heir? But when we look at presumed pre Chalco languages we find again agglutinative language (basco-Aquitain, Iberian, Etruscan). Proto-IE would have passed from agglutinative to it's declinative aspect somewhere, in it's little corner?
I see a tiny possibility of a local evolution maybe in South-Central Great Europe around future Cucuteni-Tripolye culture territories, but it's going too far maybe? These culture on the road of Balkans an the Steppes have some skills, and there some post-Neolithic culture with HG's Y-haplo's like R1b-M269(>L23) could have been accultured and take diverse roads with the late CTC elements already mixed with Steppic people who switched to a partly nomadic way of life as it seems it occurs for someones. ATW the weight of CTC on Steppic people has taken effect before the influence of Maykop. I stop here because I think I'm dreaming!
Besides, I'm surprised by the ways proposed for Italic and Albanina on the map. I think Italic forked away from Celtic more lately, in West-Central Europe and not so soon. I base myself on the intricated geography of post-Chalco-Bronze (?) IE dialects from Spain, Gaul, Britain, Benelux, Germany, Switzerland, Italy who are classified as Celtic or Italic OR kind of undetermined Celtic-Italic-like nature. Sure the most typically Italic ones are in East relative to Celtic ones, which is confirmed by some peculiarities of language (ties withGermanic and Slavic). For Albanian, it's peculiar phonetic and some ties with Germanic don't support (in my view) this travel South. It was just some hesitating thoughts.
 
gIGHalV.jpg


This is from Phys.org

I don’t really see how the Albanian could have taken the Anatolian path. To me the northern route would make more sense for Albanians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have more questons than answers, because the matter of linking languages, archeology and genetic data is a hard one. I find curious, with all the agglutinative languages we have all around South-Caucasus before modern IE languages (and around metals ages (Sumerian, Elamite, other possibly Dravidian source, Hattian, Urartian, Hurrit) and other ones currently used, and todate all around North or South-Caucasian languages families, a small pop with a completely structurally different language would have developped nefore becoming this huge family we know as the IE's. Had they a so superior level for economy, politics, war skills? Sure we have the Semitic which isn't agglutinative. We may think into the East (E-Iran: E-Caspian) or the West (W-Anatolia)? .

As you said Semitic as a major language in the West Asia isn't agglutinative but in the Steppe both Uralic and Altaic are agglutinative languages, the original homeland could be in the west of Iran, near to Semitic lands, in this article we read that early loanwords from Semitic languages are more compatible with an ultimate homeland farther south.
 
Funny, one Proto-Indo-European society at the middle of Elamite, Mesopotamian and Dradivian languages, none of the Iranian Neolithic Cultures resemble Proto Indo European, neither had any material elements that could been related to them. Also imagine that a Patriarchal and Patrilineal Society was introduced by one lineage that simple was displaced , what happened? Non paternal events? Also its funny imagining Sedentary Societies that return to Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic lifestyle, cause of??
CHG-Like ancestry was found on Southern Steppe before the Neolithic and their mixture could been found at Deriivka I even before the existence of Maykop as well as Khvalynsk. Maykop had a Mesopotamian Styled culture, nothing to do With PIE, either any "Iranian" Culture, that were Matriarcal, had a typpical Natural-Gods patheon, was the first to adopted sedentarism, etc..

Funny cause several researches pointed to Zagros Mountain influence across the Anatolian Farmers, Levantine Pré Pottery and even single Semitic population much before they suggest that it went to Steppe. In fact the Earlier linguistical divergency points to EHG related cultures as the Archaic PIE groups, like David W. Anthony said.
Altough the most common lineages of R1a or R1b weren't found yet at Pontic Caspian during E_Neolithic it doesnt mean that weren't there, considering the fact that just few Y Lineages were found and Forest Steppe zone and Western Steppe had not been well studied yet.
Find one Kurgan on Iranian Plateau, one Horse Domestication evidence, funeral practices that indicate Patriarchal Societies or Indo European-Derived deites, just find any single evidence of the PIE Cultural Complex beyond the Caucasus and thus we could suggest those sort of things properly.
R1b was very common across all Europe during that time, probably came from Some Iron Gates HG group that went Steppe during E_Neolithic and wasn't properly examined yet, R1a-m417 was widely seen, Kurgans were first found at Volga, Don, Samara and Donets rivers, as well as Horse Domestication on Large Scale, funeral practices, religious custons.
IVC, Elamites, Mesopotamians and even Levantines, Minoans, etc.. had a totally different cultural scenario, probably those Southern Arc were Semitic or Afro Asiatic as Sumerians, Akkadians, Kassites, Elamites, Dradivians, etc.. and Indo European was a evolution from EHG-Dialects with some inovations introduced by contact with Afro-Asiatic and Mediterranean Societies.

"Mycenean profile was found before Bronze Age" some models suggest it, although i doubt that Heladic Greece or even Minoan had the Cultural Elements that were related to Proto Indo European, we could secure it by Archeology, if you doubt just take a look at Funeral Custom's, Religious Practices, Social Structure, etc.. also statistical models could easily been manipulated for some proposal, keep in mind that they weren't absolutely and without others evidences seems absurdism.
About EBA Lack of EHG Derived on Anatolian like IE we should remember that the first evidence of Anatolian presence across that area were at 1750 BC, so it is very likely that those EBA Anatolians could lack any ""Steppe"" influence and it doesn't contradict any sort of Evidence.
Indo Aryan and Iranian cultures were related to Androvo Horizon, well proved by Lineages, several archeological evidence, documents, etc.. IVC was Dravidian and they were spell to the South by Central Asian Invadors, carrying R1a-Z93, the dominant lineage across the Brahmin even to modern times.
I respect different opinions but cant find any single good argument for assuming that kind of crazy theory, those models placed PIE cultures with others that had not a single evidence of Indo European Culture, using "Statistical Models" without any sort of Human Science, those whom we should use as tools for understanding the Material Archeological evidence, those that could failled not only by bias but even cause those genetic analyses uses less than 1% of our Nucleotide's Pairs.
If PIE came from Iran then Elamites and Summerians were Indo Europeans, then first farmers(came from zagros) were Indo Europeans, then Dravidian southern india were indo european, then MATRIARCAL, SEDENTARY, Mediterranean Like Religious were Proto Indo Europeans, then Proto Indo European Culture simple didn't exist and Steppe Culture was just a bunch of Barbarian Nomads that adopted the language of the Females they had conquer or those Mesopotamian Like Chiefs were simple Cucked by Chad Steppe EHG?
I m joking but it is really funny, imagining Akkadians Indo Europeans, Kassites, Chaldeans, so why shouldn't us consider Hebrews indeed? Those Indo European from Iran seems very Afro Asiatic too me, maybe their women chief them with steppes and their descendants beyond caucasus brought their language but with EHG like Y-DNA.
Ok, if you want it, being descendant of a Cucked Lineages cause you want to make some bizarre larp, ok, why should i disagree?
 
Funny, one Proto-Indo-European society at the middle of Elamite, Mesopotamian and Dradivian languages, none of the Iranian Neolithic Cultures resemble Proto Indo European, neither had any material elements that could been related to them. Also imagine that a Patriarchal and Patrilineal Society was introduced by one lineage that simple was displaced , what happened? Non paternal events? Also its funny imagining Sedentary Societies that return to Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic lifestyle, cause of??
CHG-Like ancestry was found on Southern Steppe before the Neolithic and their mixture could been found at Deriivka I even before the existence of Maykop as well as Khvalynsk. Maykop had a Mesopotamian Styled culture, nothing to do With PIE, either any "Iranian" Culture, that were Matriarcal, had a typpical Natural-Gods patheon, was the first to adopted sedentarism, etc..

Funny cause several researches pointed to Zagros Mountain influence across the Anatolian Farmers, Levantine Pré Pottery and even single Semitic population much before they suggest that it went to Steppe. In fact the Earlier linguistical divergency points to EHG related cultures as the Archaic PIE groups, like David W. Anthony said.
Altough the most common lineages of R1a or R1b weren't found yet at Pontic Caspian during E_Neolithic it doesnt mean that weren't there, considering the fact that just few Y Lineages were found and Forest Steppe zone and Western Steppe had not been well studied yet.
Find one Kurgan on Iranian Plateau, one Horse Domestication evidence, funeral practices that indicate Patriarchal Societies or Indo European-Derived deites, just find any single evidence of the PIE Cultural Complex beyond the Caucasus and thus we could suggest those sort of things properly.
R1b was very common across all Europe during that time, probably came from Some Iron Gates HG group that went Steppe during E_Neolithic and wasn't properly examined yet, R1a-m417 was widely seen, Kurgans were first found at Volga, Don, Samara and Donets rivers, as well as Horse Domestication on Large Scale, funeral practices, religious custons.
IVC, Elamites, Mesopotamians and even Levantines, Minoans, etc.. had a totally different cultural scenario, probably those Southern Arc were Semitic or Afro Asiatic as Sumerians, Akkadians, Kassites, Elamites, Dradivians, etc.. and Indo European was a evolution from EHG-Dialects with some inovations introduced by contact with Afro-Asiatic and Mediterranean Societies.

"Mycenean profile was found before Bronze Age" some models suggest it, although i doubt that Heladic Greece or even Minoan had the Cultural Elements that were related to Proto Indo European, we could secure it by Archeology, if you doubt just take a look at Funeral Custom's, Religious Practices, Social Structure, etc.. also statistical models could easily been manipulated for some proposal, keep in mind that they weren't absolutely and without others evidences seems absurdism.
About EBA Lack of EHG Derived on Anatolian like IE we should remember that the first evidence of Anatolian presence across that area were at 1750 BC, so it is very likely that those EBA Anatolians could lack any ""Steppe"" influence and it doesn't contradict any sort of Evidence.
Indo Aryan and Iranian cultures were related to Androvo Horizon, well proved by Lineages, several archeological evidence, documents, etc.. IVC was Dravidian and they were spell to the South by Central Asian Invadors, carrying R1a-Z93, the dominant lineage across the Brahmin even to modern times.
I respect different opinions but cant find any single good argument for assuming that kind of crazy theory, those models placed PIE cultures with others that had not a single evidence of Indo European Culture, using "Statistical Models" without any sort of Human Science, those whom we should use as tools for understanding the Material Archeological evidence, those that could failled not only by bias but even cause those genetic analyses uses less than 1% of our Nucleotide's Pairs.
If PIE came from Iran then Elamites and Summerians were Indo Europeans, then first farmers(came from zagros) were Indo Europeans, then Dravidian southern india were indo european, then MATRIARCAL, SEDENTARY, Mediterranean Like Religious were Proto Indo Europeans, then Proto Indo European Culture simple didn't exist and Steppe Culture was just a bunch of Barbarian Nomads that adopted the language of the Females they had conquer or those Mesopotamian Like Chiefs were simple Cucked by Chad Steppe EHG?
I m joking but it is really funny, imagining Akkadians Indo Europeans, Kassites, Chaldeans, so why shouldn't us consider Hebrews indeed? Those Indo European from Iran seems very Afro Asiatic too me, maybe their women chief them with steppes and their descendants beyond caucasus brought their language but with EHG like Y-DNA.
Ok, if you want it, being descendant of a Cucked Lineages cause you want to make some bizarre larp, ok, why should i disagree?

So much written and so much wrong.:LOL:

There is no EHG and therefore Yamnaya ancestry in Anatolia down to the Iron Age. You clearly also have no idea of where kurgans originally emerged and basically no understanding of the cultures of ancient West Asia.

Anyway, I mostly disagree with this paper.
 
I have speculated that the ~pater / ~mater words could have meant something like 'protector' and 'nurturer' respectively and I will explain why in a follow up post.

moter - was really a "nurturer" in old albanian. Johann Georg von Hahn in 1850 made quite an interesting observation in some villages in North Albania. They called "mama" the young mother, then, when a mother had certain age the child called "mama" the oldest sister, which was basically the main nurturer. So, back in time the mother and old sister was called mainly "moter" and then later on it appears that all sisters got this name. Nevertheless, still in Albanian the young mother is called "mama" and then not a younger anymore mother is called "nena". So, there is still a remnant of this "nurturer" way of calling.
 
I reply to myself: finally I found a form *leg in an old IE roots book where the vague meaning was: "to drip" and evolution towards "water retention" cf lake in english, lacus in latin-
lag - in albanian "to wet".
 
Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages


Languages of the Indo-European family are spoken by almost half of the world’s population, but their origins and patterns of spread are disputed. Heggarty et al. present a database of 109 modern and 52 time-calibrated historical Indo-European languages, which they analyzed with models of Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Their results suggest an emergence of Indo-European languages around 8000 years before present. This is a deeper root date than previously thought, and it fits with an initial origin south of the Caucasus followed by a branch northward into the Steppe region. These findings lead to a “hybrid hypothesis” that reconciles current linguistic and ancient DNA evidence from both the eastern Fertile Crescent (as a primary source) and the steppe (as a secondary homeland). —SNV

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg0818

zSEGDDul.jpg
The dating of this finding (8000+ years) aligns with the dates in the findings of the study below. To look for communities that could survive at that time, look for shallow lakes where they could build palafite settlements (early castles in the stone age). These settlements are found all around Ohrid and Prespa lakes and now-dried Maliq wetland. Adding the carbon dating techniques with the DNA techniques will give a more stronger argument.

 
gIGHalV.jpg


This is from Phys.org
Is there aDNA on which this scientific work and this hybrid hypothesis is based? What we know at this point is that Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic languages are related in a lot of common words. This should mean that these words were spoken in the common house.

The main candidate at the moment to carry these words to India is R1a Z93. and we can assume that their common ancestor is the mutation R-Z645 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

The oldest archaeogenetic data for that branch are related to Europe and Russia, and as far as I know, there is not a single piece of information that the source of that branch could be south of the Caucasus in Anatolia.

Second, YFull says that this mutation is old formed 5400 ybp, and on this map there is a source in Anatolia and a separation that is 8-7 thousand years old, that is, before the creation of the join mutation R-Z645.

Therefore, so far no archaeogenetic R1a R-Z645 migration from Anatolia towards the Russian steppes is seen and this would mean that the common home of the old Sanskrit speakers was probably the Russian steppe.
 
Is there aDNA on which this scientific work and this hybrid hypothesis is based? What we know at this point is that Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic languages are related in a lot of common words. This should mean that these words were spoken in the common house.

The main candidate at the moment to carry these words to India is R1a Z93. and we can assume that their common ancestor is the mutation R-Z645 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

The oldest archaeogenetic data for that branch are related to Europe and Russia, and as far as I know, there is not a single piece of information that the source of that branch could be south of the Caucasus in Anatolia.

Second, YFull says that this mutation is old formed 5400 ybp, and on this map there is a source in Anatolia and a separation that is 8-7 thousand years old, that is, before the creation of the join mutation R-Z645.

Therefore, so far no archaeogenetic R1a R-Z645 migration from Anatolia towards the Russian steppes is seen and this would mean that the common home of the old Sanskrit speakers was probably the Russian steppe.
In their analysis, they don't find any particular affinity for Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic, these two branches only connects around 7500 ybp, and Balto-Slavic have more recent divergent time with other western languages (even if it is a low-probability node) shortly after 7000 ybp.
From what I read about linguistic (far from being my expertise) the specific grouping of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic is not making consensus and is a subject of debates (and indeed an important one). After, this is linguist's discussions that are going far beyond my ability to evaluate the credibiity of claims in this field.
In general, it seems to me after few reading that discussions among linguists seems way less settled than the picture you can get from casual forum.
Thus, in their proposition Indo-Iranic could have been directly injected toward India/Iran without passing by a steppic homeland (or could have passed by the steppe but without specific clading with Balto-Slavic).
They are also clearly suggesting the possibility that Indus Valley Civilization and BMAC could have spoken IE languages.

The Genenic "suspect" for a that early diffusion would be most-likely CHG. And, even if the paper didn't mention it, the most matching event corresponding in time and spatial area is the diffusion of the copper metalurgy (which might also bring the possibility that the steppic secondary homeland isn't really "mandatory" to fit their linguistic tree).

This is the tricky part, the Indo-European speaking cultures are not linked by a single shared genetic component. CHG or WSH are decent candidates depending on "when" you place the dispersion of this language family.
Personnally, I cannot access the "quality" of linguistic arguments/methodologies ... thus I stay open to both options, as apparently both options are discussed in the linguists community and receive peer-reviewed publications.

To go beyond, CHG and WSH didn't have the same "footprint" for their diffusion, mainly CHG extended way much more to the south. Trying to find some IE-related substratum in Afro-asiatic languages might be a way to test such CHG/IE hypothesis. I know such "work" do exists but they are currently considered "fringe" and are therefore a little bit dubteous.
 
Last edited:
Is there aDNA on which this scientific work and this hybrid hypothesis is based? What we know at this point is that Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic languages are related in a lot of common words. This should mean that these words were spoken in the common house.

This common house was in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran, in the eight century BC the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III attacks this region, one of the lands that he conquers is Arakuttu, this is the same Arachoti in the ancient Greek sources and Harauvati in the Old Persian inscriptions, the original land of Croats in the west and Arachosians in the east.
 
In their analysis, they don't find any particular affinity for Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic, these two branches only connects around 7500 ybp, and Balto-Slavic have more recent divergent time with other western languages (even if it is a low-probability node) shortly after 7000 ybp.
From what I read about linguistic (far from being my expertise) the specific grouping of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic is not making consensus and is a subject of debates (and indeed an important one). After, this is linguist's discussions that are going far beyond my ability to evaluate the credibiity of claims in this field.
In general, it seems to me after few reading that discussions among linguists seems way less settled than the picture you can get from casual forum.
Thus, in their proposition Indo-Iranic could have been directly injected toward India/Iran without passing by a steppic homeland (or could have passed by the steppe but without specific clading with Balto-Slavic).
They are also clearly suggesting the possibility that Indus Valley Civilization and BMAC could have spoken IE languages.

The Genenic "suspect" for a that early diffusion would be most-likely CHG. And, even if the paper didn't mention it, the most matching event corresponding in time and spatial area is the diffusion of the copper metalurgy (which might also bring the possibility that the steppic secondary homeland isn't really "mandatory" to fit their linguistic tree).

This is the tricky part, the Indo-European speaking cultures are not linked by a single shared genetic component. CHG or WSH are decent candidates depending on "when" you place the dispersion of this language family.
Personnally, I cannot access the "quality" of linguistic arguments/methodologies ... thus I stay open to both options, as apparently both options are discussed in the linguists community and receive peer-reviewed publications.

To go beyond, CHG and WSH didn't have the same "footprint" for their diffusion, mainly CHG extended way much more to the south. Trying to find some IE-related substratum in Afro-asiatic languages might be a way to test such CHG/IE hypothesis. I know such "work" do exists but they are currently considered "fringe" and are therefore a little bit dubteous.
It is a pity that this scientific paper does not have a linguistic tree drawn according to this theory, because it would be easier to understand their thesis. I don't know the history of Sanskrit and its connection with Iranian languages, but we know that connection between Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic words exists, from the time of living in their ancestral homeland. The only connection in this sense is the R1a Z93 branch. How then is it possible that their ancestral home according to this scientific paper is located in an area where there is no archaeogenetic R1a Z93 as well as its ancestral Balto-Slavic mutation?

If we look at this language tree, https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys...=max&dpr=2&s=93dd6871f9841a32f4a7876932ea1a49 then Slavic languages and Indo-Aryan have a common connection in the Indo-European homeland. If we assume that it is south of the Caucasus, who from that ancestral homeland brings common words to the territory where R1a groups live all the way to the Baltic? As far as I know R1a Balto-Slavic branches do not migrate from Anatolia towards the Russian steppes and the Baltic.

That's why I ask, on which aDNA is this work based? That is important and I do not know that information.
 
Last edited:
This common house was in the south of Caucasus and northwest of Iran, in the eight century BC the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III attacks this region, one of the lands that he conquers is Arakuttu, this is the same Arachoti in the ancient Greek sources and Harauvati in the Old Persian inscriptions, the original land of Croats in the west and Arachosians in the east.
None of that as far as I know. The only migration of R1a goes towards India from direction of the Russian steppe. Opposite R1a migrations do not exist.
And as for the original country of Croats, it is White Croatia and the main Y haplotype in Croats is I2a, which is not of Indo-European origin.
 
Last edited:
Not only for words but also for phonetic, Balto-Slavc and Indo-Iranic show trends they don't share with other IE cousin languages, and phonetic is a very important element do determine ancient ties, IMHO... other ties between Balto-Slavic and northern or western IE dialects could have been acquired rather by contact?
That said put anDNA and linguistic tree (one or more?) is still a very hard work. Intercations perdured after first separation of still close ancient dialectes, I think, blurring things.
 

This thread has been viewed 18781 times.

Back
Top